Feature #21258: Retire CGI library from Ruby 3.5

• Status: Open
• Assignee: -
• Target version: -

[hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)]

I would like to retire CGI library from Ruby 3.5.0 release. It means CGI is not promoted bundled gems. The users need to run gem install cgi after Ruby 3.5 if they want to use CGI library.

Background

I handled two CVEs related CGI library at https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2025/02/26/security-advisories/

We shouldn't spend our time to maintain CGI library in the future because CGI is old protocol. In fact, Perl 5.22.0 removed CGI.pm at 2015, Python 3.13 also removed cgi at Nov 2024.

Problem

CGI is not using widely today. But cgi/escape is core feature in Ruby ecosystem. erb, net-http and bundler depend CGI.escape/CGI.unescape. And CGI.escapeHTML, CGI.escapeURIComponent are used at that libraries.

Solution

1. We keep only cgi/escape feature in Ruby. The current CGI library is removed and depend cgi-escape gem.
2. We migrate cgi/escape to other class/module. The current CGI library and cgi/escape are removed.

The new class/module location is diffcult. I discussed that with some Ruby core member.

• URI.escape/unescape: URI.escape is migrated to URI::RFC2396_PARSER.escape at Ruby 3.4. The new URI.escape is confusing name with historical reason.
• URI::Util.escape: It seems okay...?

I think URI or related name are good place for that because other language provide that under the url libraries:

Python:

import urllib.parse
urllib.parse.quote()

Java:

import java.net.URLEncoder;
URLEncoder.encode()

Go:

import "net/url"
url.QueryEscape()

Migration plan

If Idea 2 is accepted and decide new location, We provide dummy module and method for cgi/escape. That dummy module call new method and warn about deprecating cgi/escape.

[soutaro (Soutaro Matsumoto)]

I like the idea of deprecating CGI and moving the escape/unescape methods!

JavaScript calls the features "hello".encode_uri_component, so can we call it String#encode_uri_component?
(I don't think this is the way we should go, but I believe it's better than CGI.escape.)

The straightforward name would be URI.escape, but I understand that it's difficult for historical reason.

[kou (Kouhei Sutou)]

URI.encode (not escape)?

[jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans)]

I am in favor of retiring cgi and keeping cgi/escape feature. Of the two options, I prefer option 1 (keep only cgi/escape feature in Ruby). It is the more backwards compatible option, and I do not think the benefits of using a new module outweigh the backwards compatibility costs.

[hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)]

@kou (Kouhei Sutou) +1, @tompng (tomoya ishida) suggest URI.escape_query_param. I prefer these approachs.

@jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) I understood your concerns. But we need to keep looking for descriptive and meaningful module/class for the new Ruby users.

[tompng (tomoya ishida)]

CGI.escape_uri_component and URI.encode_uri_component are almost the same except * and ~.
CGI.escape and URI.encode_www_form_component are also almost the same except * and ~.
Do we really need to properly use these four methods? If not, I think URI already have enough encode methods for two purpose.

I suggested URI.escape_query_param but now I think something like URI.encode_www_form_component_cgi_style would be more descriptive. Long naming is good if we don't recommend it over URI.encode_www_form_component.

Method/Function	Spec
CGI.escape_uri_component	RFC3986
CGI.escape	www-form-urlencoded version of CGI.escape_uri_component. I think this gem-cgi-style spec doesn't have a name.
URI.encode_uri_component	uri-component version of URI.encode_www_form_component
URI.encode_www_form_component	https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#application-x-www-form-urlencoded-percent-encode-set
JavaScript: encodeURIComponent	https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#component-percent-encode-set